Edward Durant v ICO (Dismissed Freedom of Information Act 2000)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant has engaged in extensive communications with Company B since 2009. On 15 May 2015, the Appellant submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about complaints made to Company B over the previous five years, specifically the number of complaints, their resolution times, and how many remained unresolved. Company B refused the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of FOIA. An internal review upheld this decision. The Information Commissioner supported Company B’s refusal, relying on established legal principles regarding vexatious requests. The Appellant appealed this refusal to the First-Tier Tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company B and the Information Commissioner were correct in refusing to respond to the Appellant’s FOIA request on the basis that it was vexatious under section 14 of FOIA.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that Company B had been dishonest in its submissions to the Information Commissioner.
• The Appellant argued that the case histories referenced by the Information Commissioner did not apply to his situation.
• The Appellant claimed that several complaints filed with Company B were acknowledged as received but not acted upon as complaints.
• The Appellant sought an affirmation that Company B does not follow its own complaints procedures and has misled Parliament in its annual reports.
• The Appellant requested that the Information Commissioner adopt a more proactive approach in applying procedures beyond the strict letter of the law.

Respondents' Arguments

• Company B relied on the precedent set in the Upper Tribunal case regarding the definition and application of "vexatious" requests.
• Company B argued it had complied with its FOIA duties by confirming that the requested information was not held and that refusing the request under section 14 was lawful.
• Company B noted a history of protracted communications with the Appellant and his associate, during which complaints were never clearly substantiated or progressed.
• Company B emphasized the burden imposed by the Appellant’s requests and the lack of proportionality, characterizing the requests as part of a campaign rather than genuine enquiries.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal analysed the Appellant’s request in the context of the criteria established in the Dransfield case, focusing on the burden imposed on Company B, the Appellant’s motives, the value or serious purpose of the request, and the potential harassment or distress caused to Company B staff. The Tribunal found that Company B had complied with its FOIA obligations by confirming it did not hold the requested information and lawfully refused further responses under section 14. The Tribunal considered the extensive history of interactions between the Appellant and Company B, noting that the Appellant’s communications had been protracted and lacked clear substantiation of complaints. The Tribunal concluded that the request was part of a campaign aimed at personal satisfaction rather than a genuine information enquiry, resulting in an unjustified burden on Company B’s resources. Allowing the requests to continue would constitute an abuse of FOIA rights. The Tribunal also addressed procedural matters concerning the Appellant’s representative’s status and submissions, clarifying that he was not a party to the appeal. The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to depart from the established application of section 14.

Holding and Implications

The Tribunal upheld the decision notice dated 14 December 2015 and dismissed the appeal, confirming that Company B was entitled to refuse the Appellant’s FOIA request as vexatious under section 14. This decision protects Company B from disproportionate burdens caused by repeated and unsubstantiated requests. The ruling does not establish new precedent but reaffirms the application of the Dransfield criteria in assessing vexatious FOIA requests. There is no order as to costs, and the decision clarifies the status of executive agencies in FOIA appeals without affecting the outcome here.